Grand Avenue Del Taco Threatened With Demolition

threeonefour · PostJun 28, 2011#762011-06-28T18:24+00:00

olvidarte wrote:Not trying to be a cynic, but where is the Mayor when much more historically significant buildings are up for demolition?

I'll see your cynicism and I'll raise it a notch. I find it hard to believe the mayor cares all that much. I also think the "Mayor's" blog post is a bit disingenuous when the last time I checked, which was admittedly a long time ago, the mayor's "thoughts" were written by Richard Callow. I doubt much has changed at MayorSlay.com. Slay has stood silent when many other significant buildings were blithely demolished. And Callow, aside from the obvious conflict of interest, has been a rubber stamp for many demolitions as a member of the Preservation Board.

Also, the fight to blight Del Taco by the Board of Aldermen is a pathetic joke. I can think of at least a dozen CLOSED and ABANDONED fast food restaurants, just in south St. Louis, that could and should be blighted and demolished. Never mind the countless strip centers that have been built and never fully occupied over the last several years.

downtown2007 · PostJun 28, 2011#772011-06-28T18:27+00:00

There was a comment made last night on collateral damage that the BOA and media were expecting a large showing from the public at last weeks meeting but barely anyone showed up. They stated that everyone is quick to voice their concerns over their computer but is too afraid to be present and put the necessary blood and sweat when the time comes. So it would be a small victory if a lot of people can show up at the meeting this week.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 28, 2011#782011-06-28T18:55+00:00

downtown2007 wrote:There was a comment made last night on collateral damage that the BOA and media were expecting a large showing from the public at last weeks meeting but barely anyone showed up. They stated that everyone is quick to voice their concerns over their computer but is too afraid to be present and put the necessary blood and sweat when the time comes. So it would be a small victory if a lot of people can show up at the meeting this week.

It's called "Slacktivism".

threeonefour · PostJun 28, 2011#792011-06-28T19:03+00:00

the central scrutinizer wrote:
downtown2007 wrote:There was a comment made last night on collateral damage that the BOA and media were expecting a large showing from the public at last weeks meeting but barely anyone showed up. They stated that everyone is quick to voice their concerns over their computer but is too afraid to be present and put the necessary blood and sweat when the time comes. So it would be a small victory if a lot of people can show up at the meeting this week.
It's called "Slacktivism".

True to some degree. But it's also true that many people that are opposed to this and are willing to testify also have to go to work and/or school during the day. That's how unpopular decisions get ramrodded through the Board of Aldermen. Many cities have meetings during the evening at a more convenient time for most people.

ttricamo · PostJun 28, 2011#802011-06-28T19:17+00:00

I've remained on the sidelines of this debate for a while and just wanted to add a couple points

1 - While I don't think the building should be knocked down, I do want to point out the fact that some of the recommendations for the building are completely ridiculous. A BRT station? Moving the building to another site? There are so many wild ass assumptions made in those two recommendations they sound about as plausible as re-tooling the site as a launch pad for Russian spacecraft. I mean, the building does look like a flying saucer. As cool as they sound, you can't just offer up some random solution without regard for schedule, scope, and cost of the project. Its not reality, and it only bolsters your opponents position to knock the building down.

2 - Now, while I think some of the recommendations for the site are total make-believe, I don't think this building should be knocked down until we have a real plan in place to better utilize the lot. I don't know if that is the current design plan because, as far as I can tell, we haven't seen said plan just yet.

My point: If you're angry about the demolition of this building, you're ultimately angry at the zoning, building, and planning processes of the City. Let's be honest, would anyone be angry if the proposed new-build looked like this?

http://www.dccondoboutique.com/images/w ... et_500.jpg

I highly doubt it. However, for St. Louis to start building anything close to what is in that photo, or BRT stations, or Russian spacecraft launch pads, so much has to change. We should start by re-evaluating the Aldermaic variable of this decision and how pathetic it really is.

Roger Wyoming · PostJun 28, 2011#812011-06-28T21:32+00:00

ttricamo wrote:I've remained on the sidelines of this debate for a while and just wanted to add a couple points

1 - While I don't think the building should be knocked down, I do want to point out the fact that some of the recommendations for the building are completely ridiculous. A BRT station? Moving the building to another site? There are so many wild ass assumptions made in those two recommendations they sound about as plausible as re-tooling the site as a launch pad for Russian spacecraft. I mean, the building does look like a flying saucer. As cool as they sound, you can't just offer up some random solution without regard for schedule, scope, and cost of the project. Its not reality, and it only bolsters your opponents position to knock the building down.

Who is recommending the building be moved? It was clearly stated that this was not suggested but was simply stated that it could be an imperfect solution of last resort. And the brt posting specifically stated it was an exercise in imagining an adaptive repurposing of the building. It is bizarre to state that either of these statements bolsters a position to knock the building down. Perhaps you need to calm down?

quincunx · PostJun 29, 2011#822011-06-29T16:49+00:00

From the Twitter coverage

Yackey: plan for Del Taco site would be "pedestrian friendly, have a larger setback and more parking." what?!?!

Krewson: "Board Bill says 50-100 new jobs will happen here. What is your plan?" Yackey: "I'm in negotiation with national retailers."

How big of a building can you put there with a larger setback and more parking? How could it support 50-100 jobs?

threeonefour · PostJun 29, 2011#832011-06-29T18:30+00:00

So now the new building (Has anyone seen a rendering yet? Yeah. Me neither! But we should trust the BofA to make the right decision!) is "pedestrian friendly" yet it has "a larger setback and more parking". Really? I want some of whatever Mr. Yackey is smoking if he doesn't see the slightest contradiction in that statement! Also, with regards to his ability to attract tenants to this site, how's it going with the Railway Exchange Building now that Macy's has been downsized with taxpayers' assistance?

I don't know if I could attend one of these meetings if I had the time. I'm afraid police would haul me out of there after I spoke my mind to the majority of lame-brained aldermen that represent our city. I love St. Louis, but I am losing faith in it because of its inept leadership. And this controversy is the latest in a long line of civic failures, and whatever the outcome, it sure won't be the last. Too many aldermen simply don't have a clue about what makes a city a city, not to mention what makes St. Louis stand out from being "just a city" in the first place. Those that know are either drowned out by the mindless majority, or they are shackled to the failed and idiotic concept of aldermanic courtesy.

MattnSTL · PostJun 29, 2011#842011-06-29T18:36+00:00

Passed out of committee with a 5-2 vote. Yes = Ford-Griffin, Ortmann, Boyd, Davis, and Troupe. No = Florida and Wessels. Ogilvie and Cohn testified essentially against, but are not on the committee. Kreswon left before the vote, but seemed against. Kennedy, Young, Conway, and Carter were absent. If you want a good recap, read the tweets from @NextSTL.

ttricamo · PostJun 29, 2011#852011-06-29T18:39+00:00

Does anyone know where we could obtain full transcripts or video from the meeting this morning?

threeonefour · PostJun 29, 2011#862011-06-29T18:42+00:00

MattnSTL wrote:Passed out of committee with a 5-2 vote. Yes = Ford-Griffin, Ortmann, Boyd, Davis, and Troupe. No = Florida and Wessels. Ogilvie and Cohn testified essentially against, but are not on the committee. Kreswon left before the vote, but seemed against. Kennedy, Young, Conway, and Carter were absent. If you want a good recap, read the tweets from @NextSTL.

Wow! You mean my alderman- Fred Wessels- voted against? I am actually impressed! I assumed based on past votes and statements that his viewpoint was stuck in 1975 like most aldermen.

Now let's see what happens before the full BofA on Friday.

erina · PostJun 29, 2011#872011-06-29T19:05+00:00

You should go thank him at Foodland Friday Morning.
http://aldermanwessels.com/foodland.html

ttricamo · PostJun 29, 2011#882011-06-29T19:27+00:00

threeonefour wrote:Now let's see what happens before the full BofA on Friday.

Ah yes. The million dollar question. My guess is that we see a majority vote to give the developer a tax abatement. Aldermanic Courtesy is alive and well in this City.

However, I predict some sort of divine like intervention on the part of the Mayor to further muddy the water and perhaps save the building, or give the appearance that he tried to save the builing.

The Lesson: When the constituency has been roused, they still hold some sway over the leadership. In other words, Slay wouldn't have said f*&^ one if some of his potential voters hadn't voiced opposition.

Alex - lets roll out the Citizens' Plan for St. Louis!!!!!!!! The time is right, man!

threeonefour · PostJun 29, 2011#892011-06-29T19:40+00:00

ttricamo wrote:However, I predict some sort of divine like intervention on the part of the Mayor to further muddy the water and perhaps save the building, or give the appearance that he tried to save the building.

I suspect he'll do the latter. I don't think Mayor Slay has met a developer to which he did not kowtow at one point or another.

timeforguinness · PostJun 29, 2011#902011-06-29T20:08+00:00

threeonefour wrote:So now the new building (Has anyone seen a rendering yet? Yeah. Me neither! But we should trust the BofA to make the right decision!) is "pedestrian friendly" yet it has "a larger setback and more parking". Really? I want some of whatever Mr. Yackey is smoking if he doesn't see the slightest contradiction in that statement! Also, with regards to his ability to attract tenants to this site, how's it going with the Railway Exchange Building now that Macy's has been downsized with taxpayers' assistance?

I don't know if I could attend one of these meetings if I had the time. I'm afraid police would haul me out of there after I spoke my mind to the majority of lame-brained aldermen that represent our city. I love St. Louis, but I am losing faith in it because of its inept leadership. And this controversy is the latest in a long line of civic failures, and whatever the outcome, it sure won't be the last. Too many aldermen simply don't have a clue about what makes a city a city, not to mention what makes St. Louis stand out from being "just a city" in the first place. Those that know are either drowned out by the mindless majority, or they are shackled to the failed and idiotic concept of aldermanic courtesy.

...and so, the suburbanization of the city continues.

jmstokes · PostJun 29, 2011#912011-06-29T20:14+00:00

timeforguinness wrote:
...and so, the suburbanization of the city continues.

As we continue to play to our weaknesses, and I continue to worry about how I'll sell this house in 2 years and get the hell out.

MattnSTL · PostJun 29, 2011#922011-06-29T20:37+00:00

While the above posts make good points, this bill has not passed the wider Board of Aldermen, or the Mayor. A lot of things could happen. I think worrying about how to get the hell out may be a slight overreaction at this point. I like the view Michael Allen takes: Del Taco and Aldermanic Courtesy

warwickland · PostJun 29, 2011#932011-06-29T23:11+00:00

jmstokes wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
...and so, the suburbanization of the city continues.
As we continue to play to our weaknesses, and I continue to worry about how I'll sell this house in 2 years and get the hell out.

So yeah, it's a banged up old city with some seriously memorable opportunities and some heartbreak. In any case, we could all do without the cliche St. Louis drama - it's been done.

dredger · PostJun 29, 2011#942011-06-29T23:36+00:00

timeforguinness wrote:
...and so, the suburbanization of the city continues.

Respectifully disagree in this particular case

For or against demolition, I would argue that surbanizantion in the portion of the city was the day that Forest Parkway went under Grand. In fact you can easily agrue that this building being designed and originally built as a gas station promoted an autocentric environment for all intents and purposes. Even in its current form, it begs people to use the drive through. What will be proposed might not be any better but its not any different in principle - a commercial building meant to serve an autocentric society.

If anything, with or without Del Taco building, a return of urbanization to this area won't happen unless Grand Center plan addresses Grand Ave all the way to metrolink and comes to the conclusion that Grand/FPP must be an at grade street intersection instead of a mini stretch of freeway that was the rage once upon a time. Just as West downtown won't see resurgence until the 22nd street parkway is finally put to rest with a new I-64/Hwy 40 intersection that returns the street grid in the immediate area.

In other words, yes a very unique building that offers value and would love to see remain intact. But I don't think it should confused with something that brings a sense of urbanization to the area.

moorlander · PostJun 29, 2011#952011-06-29T23:57+00:00

jmstokes wrote:
timeforguinness wrote:
...and so, the suburbanization of the city continues.
As we continue to play to our weaknesses, and I continue to worry about how I'll sell this house in 2 years and get the hell out.

Why all the haste lately? Does tearing down a fast food restaurant really make you want to leave the city? BTW, I have three friends who have either sold or purchased a home that was on the market less than 10 days. Pretty impressive in my book.

bjones · PostJun 30, 2011#962011-06-30T02:03+00:00

moorlander wrote:BTW, I have three friends who have either sold or purchased a home that was on the market less than 10 days. Pretty impressive in my book.

To corroborate, I'm currently considering buying a house. I wasn't in a rush, figuring the market was slow. One of my front-runners hit the market, I visited with my Realtor a couple days later, a couple days after that it was gone.

Of course I'm also seeing houses that have been on the market for months and months, so it goes both ways. But it's certainly not completely stagnant.

newstl2020 · PostJun 30, 2011#972011-06-30T02:54+00:00

I hope this doesn't hit a nerve and it isn't anything personal, but it seems as though JM has took an unfortunate dive off the deep-end lately.

When the sun comes up tomorrow morning it is a new day. Lots of things can happen, that's the beauty of it

Roger Wyoming · PostJun 30, 2011#982011-06-30T03:47+00:00

This is a bit off topic, but today I noticed an interesting and rare example of a fast food location that is actually pedestrian-friendly. This is the new building on South Grand just south of Gravois across from the Buttery. A Wing Stop had been there for awhile but I think a Subway and Papa John's have opened fairly recently. I'll have to snap a photo, but it was astonishing to see fast food joints without parking lots!

edit... there is a small parking lot to the side of the building that shares a cut out with the next building south, a Family Dollar.

PostJun 30, 2011#992011-06-30T03:52+00:00

erina wrote:You should go thank him at Foodland Friday Morning.
http://aldermanwessels.com/foodland.html

Wessels also was a main backer of the Complete Streets legislation and sponsored the legislation making sure digital signage doesn't get out of control. He is a good guy.

jmstokes · PostJun 30, 2011#1002011-06-30T11:47+00:00

newstl2020 wrote:I hope this doesn't hit a nerve and it isn't anything personal, but it seems as though JM has took an unfortunate dive off the deep-end lately.

I've lost faith in this city, and more importantly, its leaders, to provide a liveable, urban environment in which to live and raise my family. I'm willing to put up with the crime above the national average, the piss-poor schools, and the headaches that come with city living. I'm not willing to put up with all of the negatives to live in a suburbanized environment - where buildings are torn down for strip malls and parking lots, where aldermen defer to "courtesy" in the 11,000 person ward over because we can't act as a city, and where I virtually have to drive to half the places I want to visit, because there's simply no other alternative.

Back to my other thread about playing to our weaknesses and the relation here. I don't care about the Del Taco building in particular. I do care about a process that removes all that is unique and interesting about this city and replaces it with the same crap I can get in Ballwin. Why live in a "city" that refuses to act like one?

It makes me want to pull my hair out. Our ONE true benefit over all the godforsaken, far flung, sh*tty suburbs in the area is our urban environment, and with it, all the beautiful architecture, walkable areas, and interesting stores that come with it. Do we support any of those? No. We tear them down in some misguided 1950's attempt at job creation, when our incompetent alderpeople piss back and forth for the next $1,000 donation from a big developer who can smack down a QT and claim to create 50 jobs - all minimum wage, and all rubbish. It makes me sick, and I'm tired of it.

Young people want to move to cities in droves - and we're too busy trying to accommodate some other demographic instead of positioning ourselves to these young people who might move here as singles but later get married and have families and give this city the bump it needs to get over this hump and back to an upswing. I don't get the end game - and with 28 aldermen each responsible for a tiny area, and too simple or ignorant to look at the big picture, there is no end game, other than abject failure for the region.

I know good things are happening in this city, and damn, there are good people, doing great advocacy. From my, personal, point of view, I'm seeing a lot more negatives than I am positives. I'm a transplant to St. Louis, so I don't see all this as politics as usual. I see a broken system that has failed utterly and completely for 50 years that people just shake their heads and cluck at as "business as usual."

Grand Avenue Del Taco Threatened With Demolition

Choose Display Mode